Madras High Court
Selvaraj vs State Represented By on 23 October, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
1.Selvaraj
2.Saravanan
3.Ezhumalai
4.Pazhani ... Appellants
in Crl.A.No.641 of 2018
Kullammal ... Appellant
in Crl.A.No.160 of 2019
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Polur Police Station,
Polur,
Thiruvannamalai District.
Crime No.437 of 2008 ... Respondent
in both Appeals
Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 20.09.2018 in
Page 1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
S.C.No.84 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court,
Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.R.Krishnakumar
Legal Aid Counsel
in both Appeals
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
in both Appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated
20.09.2018, in S.C.No.84 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District and
Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai, A1, A3, A4 and A5 have filed
Crl.A.No.641 of 2018 and A2 has filed Crl.O.P.No.160 of 2019. The
accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows :
Accused Conviction Sentence
A1 to A5 Sections 147 and Two years rigorous imprisonment each and fine
506(2) IPC of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo three
months rigorous imprisonment
A1 Section 325 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one year
rigorous imprisonment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
Accused Conviction Sentence
A1 Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default, to undergo two years rigorous
imprisonment
A2 Section 323 IPC One year simple imprisonment and fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month
simple imprisonment
Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment each and fine of Rs.1,000/-
r/w.149 IPC each, in default, to undergo two years rigorous
A3 to A5 imprisonment
Section 148 and 324 Three years rigorous imprisonment each and
IPC fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three
months rigorous imprisonment
2.The case of the prosecution is as follows :
2.1.There was a previous enmity between the deceased Babu and A1's
family in removing the sand next to A1's property. Prior to the day of
occurrence, there was a quarrel between the parties on excavation of sand.
Thereafter, on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 13.08.2008 at about 05.30
p.m., A1, his wife A2, and sons A3 to A5 assembled unlawfully with stick
and iron rods and beat the deceased. A1 attacked the deceased on his head;
A3 hit the deceased on his left ear; A4 attacked the deceased on his ankle
and A5 beat the deceased on his back. A2 also attacked the deceased on his
ankle with axe. When P.W.1 and P.W.2 tried to prevent the attack, they
were also attacked by the accused. The above occurrence was witnessed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the Polur
Hospital. From there, he was taken to Vellore CMC Hospital, where, he
succumbed to the injuries on the next day, i.e., on 14.08.2008.
2.2.On the basis the complaint given by P.W.1, an FIR (Ex.P1) came
to be registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Polur Police Station
(P.W.14) against A1 to A5 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324,
323 and 307 IPC.
2.3.After receipt of the FIR (Ex.P1), P.W.18 (Investigating Officer)
went to the place of occurrence on 14.08.2008 at about 08.30 a.m., and
prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P14) in the presence of P.W.9 and
Rough Sketch (Ex.P15) and also recorded the statements of the witnesses.
On the same night, he examined the injured Babu and recorded his
statement. Thereafter, after receipt of the death intimation, he altered the
FIR to one under Section 302 IPC and filed the alteration report (Ex.P16).
Thereafter, he also conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared
inquest report (Ex.P17) and sent the dead body for postmortem.
2.4.P.W.17 (medical officer) conducted autopsy over the body of the
deceased and issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P13) opining that the death
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
of the deceased was due to the head injuries causing damage to the brain.
2.5.In continuation of the investigation, the Investigating Officer
(P.W.18) arrested the accused persons, recorded their confession, and seized
the material objects (M.Os.1 to 5) in the presence of P.W.10 and another
witness.
2.6.P.W.16 (medical officer), who has admitted Indira (P.W.1), has
noted contusion on her right forearm measuring 3 x 2 cm and has opined
that the above injury is grievous in nature and on the same day, issued
Ex.P11 - Accident Register in this regard. He has also admitted one Velu
(P.W.2) and noted 6 x 1 x 0.5 laceration on the right head and contusion on
the left knee and issued Ex.P12 - Accident Register.
2.7.The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, laid
final report against the accused A1 to A5 for the offences under Sections
147, 148, 324, 323 and 302 IPC, in P.R.C.No.1 of 2009 before the Judicial
Magistrate, Polur.
3.On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
S.C.No.84 of 2009 and was made over to the Principal District and Sessions
Court, Tiruvannamalai, for trial.
4.The trial Court framed the charge for the offence under Section 147
IPC as against A1 to A5; charges for the offences under Section 148 IPC as
against A3 to A5; charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC as against
A1; charges for the offences under Sections 302 r/w. 149 IPC as against A3
to A5; charge for the offence under Section 325 IPC as against A1; charge
for the offence under Section 323 IPC as against A1; charge under Section
323 IPC as against A2; charge for the offences under Section 324 as against
A3 to A5; charge for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC as against A1 to
A5. When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.
5.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 18
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Exs.P1 to P20 and produced
M.Os.1 to 5. On the side of the defence, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined
and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
6.The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 20.09.2018, found all
the accused guilty of the offences and thereby, convicted and sentenced the
accused A1 to A5 as stated supra.
7.Challenging the conviction and sentence, Crl.A.No.641 of 2018 is
filed by A1, A3, A4 & A5 and Crl.A.No.160 of 2019 is filed by A2.
8.As the accused could not engage a counsel to defend their case, a
Legal Aid counsel was appointed by this Court to prosecute the appeals.
Accordingly, Mr.R.Krishnakumar, Legal Aid counsel, appearing for the
petitioners, would submit that the entire eye-witness theory is unbelievable
and the prosecution has suppressed the other side version completely. All
the statements of the eye witnesses are parrot-like repetition, which are
totally unreliable. Further, it is his contention that the time of occurrence
itself is not established. Further, the FIR has been registered with a delay
and also sent to the Court with huge delay, which has not been explained by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
the prosecution. Therefore, it is his contention that the judgment of
conviction has to be set aside.
9.Whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State, would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are injured,
clearly attribute the overt acts against each of the accused. The other eye-
witnesses P.Ws.3 to 8 have also clearly spoken about the occurrence. There
was no motive, whatsoever, established against them for false implication of
the accused persons. Hence, he would submit that the judgment of the trial
Court does not require any interference.
10.We have perused the entire materials available on record.
11.The charges against the accused are that, due to some prior enmity
in excavation of sand near the land owned by the accused, there was a
quarrel between the deceased and the accused on the previous day of
occurrence. Thereafter, on the next day, i.e. the date of occurrence on
13.08.2008 at 05.30 p.m., all the accused unlawfully assembled with deadly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
weapons M.Os.1 to 5 and each of them assaulted the deceased with the
deadly weapons, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, on
account of which, he succumbed to the injuries on the next day, i.e. on
14.08.2008.
12.On a careful perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2,
who claim to be the injured witnesses, they have stated in a unison voice
that the occurrence took place at 05.30 p.m. on 13.08.2008. However, on
careful analysis of the evidence, though P.W.1 and P.W.2 have spoken about
the overt acts of all the family members of the accused, when they were
admitted before the medical officer for the injures sustained by them, their
version was that they were attacked only by three known persons. Only
while giving statements and during the evidence, all the family members of
the accused have been implicated. Be that as it may.
13.Though it is the specific version of P.W.1 that the occurrence took
place at 05.30 p.m., in her cross-examination, she has categorically admitted
that there was a scuffle between two groups and when she reached the spot,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
already, the deceased as well as A1 were lying down in the A1's house and
there was a huge crowd already gathered in the place. Her evidence clearly
indicates that she was not aware of what had happened prior to the
occurrence and who was the real aggressor. Further, she has categorically
admitted in the cross-examination that the occurrence took place in the night
hours, whereas, the specific version of the prosecution is that the occurrence
took place at 05.30 in the evening, which creates a serious doubt in the mind
of the Court about the veracity of the evidence of P.W.1.
14.P.W.2, who also claims to be an injured witness, in his evidence,
has stated there was a group clash between two sections. P.W.2 also, while
he was admitted in the hospital, has categorically stated that the occurrence
took place at 07.10 p.m., whereas, it is the specific version of the
prosecution that the occurrence took place at 05.30 p.m. Therefore, the
above fact clearly indicates that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not come up with the
true version.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
15.Further, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly indicates that the
accused side is also seriously injured. In fact, P.W.1's evidence clearly
indicates that A1 was also lying down in his house when she reached the
spot. In fact, A1 also got injured all over his head and was admitted in the
hospital, which is clearly substantiated by Ex.D1 (Wound Certificate)
relating to A1. Ex.D1 also clearly indicates that there is a lacerated wound
on the forehead measuring 5 x 1 x 0.5 cm; 4 x 1 x 0.5 cm on temporal region
(centre); 7 x 1 x 0.5 cm on the temporal region scalp; and also other injuries
on knee, shoulder and elbow, etc. The injuries sustained by the accused
group, are totally suppressed by the Investigating Officer for the reasons
best known to him. Even in his evidence, he has not whispered as any such
incident had happened.
16.It is further relevant to note that P.W.2, though has stated to be
working as Maistry and that he knows the deceased, has spoken about all
the accused in a parrot-like repetition. He has also admitted that the
occurrence took place in the night hours and he has also admitted that A1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
and A2 were also injured and they were also admitted in the hospital. The
entire cross-examination of P.W.2, when scanned, would indicate that he has
also admitted not once, but many times, that the occurrence took place in the
night hours. Whereas, the prosecution has projected a case as if the
occurrence took place in the evening hours at 05.30 p.m. This is one of the
reasons which creates serious doubt in the entire prosecution version.
17.P.W.3, who is said to be the eye-witness to the incident, has clearly
admitted in the cross-examination that, by the time he visited the spot, the
occurrence was already over and A1 was also injured.
18.Similarly, P.W.4, in the cross-examination, has admitted that he is
not aware as to who was the aggressor. Further, in the cross-examination,
he has asserted again and again that the occurrence took place at 05.30 p.m.,
which is totally contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 who also stood in the
place of occurrence and got some injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
19.P.W.5, another eye-witness, though in chief-examination, has
stated that the accused beat the deceased, in the cross-examination, has
clearly admitted that A1 was also attacked and before reaching the spot,
fight between the two groups was already over.
20.P.W.6, the father of the deceased, though has stated as if he was
present in the place of occurrence, his evidence clearly indicates that, even
before reaching the spot, his son had already died and he was taken to the
hospital, which is totally contrary to the very prosecution story itself. In
fact, the deceased was taken to the hospital and he was alive in the hospital
and he succumbed to the injuries only on the next day. Therefore, the
evidence of P.W.6 is also totally improbable and creates serious doubt about
the occurrence.
21.The cross-examination of P.W.7 clearly shows that there were 50
people each of them beating others, and he was also injured. However, he
has not gone to the hospital.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
22.P.W.8, though claims to be eye-witness, in the cross-examination,
has admitted that he has not gone to the spot and witnessed the occurrence.
23.The entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, when scanned
together, clearly indicates that there was a group fight between two groups
and both sides sustained injuries. Though it is stated that the statements of
all the eye-witnesses have been recorded by the Investigating Officer on the
same day when he took up investigation, in fact, except the statement of
P.W.1, all the other statements have reached the Court only on 06.01.2009.
For this delay, there is no explanation. If really the Investigating Officer
had conducted investigation then and there and recorded the statements of
the witnesses, he ought to have despatched the statements then and there to
the Magistrate.
24.Further, though P.W.1 would indicate that she has given a
complaint on the date of occurrence itself, the FIR came to be registered
only on the next day morning. Though the FIR is stated to have been filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
at 06.30 in the morning, the same has been despatched to the Court only at
05.45 p.m. on the next day. This huge delay in sending the FIR to the Court,
has also not been explained.
25.Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 are stated to have sustained certain
injuries, their version implicating all the family members of the accused in
parrot-like repetition, coupled with the delay in sending the statements of
the witnesses to the Court; the contradictory statements of the eye-
witnesses; the complete variance with regard to time of occurrence between
the prosecution version and the witnesses' statements; the suppression of
injuries sustained by the accused side members, would clearly probabilise
the fact that the witnesses have spoken against the accused only due to
previous enmity and the prosecution has not come out with the true version.
The other side version is totally suppressed and the injuries sustained by the
accused have not been explained. There is no whisper, whatsoever, in the
entire investigation about the nature of injuries sustained by the accused.
The Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has not whispered anything about
the injuries sustained by the accused. He has not even made an attempt to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
note that the other side also sustained injuries and that they were admitted in
the hospital. Further, there are many infirmities in the statements of the so-
called eye-witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, as found above.
Therefore, we are of the clear view that it is unsafe to convict the accused
for such a huge crime, particularly when one version is totally suppressed
by the prosecution and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are also
highly doubtful and improved in every stage and they have not come out
with the true version, and the very time of occurrence is also highly
doubtful.
26.Further, yet another aspect we have noticed is that the trial Court
has committed a grave mistake in not even recording the explanation of the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court has just marked the
initials and none of the accused's explanation has been recorded in the
questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which is also in violation of the very
procedure contemplated under law. The trial Court has mechanically passed
an order of conviction, relying upon the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, without appreciating the entire evidence to find out the whether
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
those evidences are reliable or conviction can be made based on such
evidence. The trial Court has mechanically approved the prosecution
version as if the statements of the prosecution witnesses are gospel truth.
27.In view of the above findings, we are of the view that the
prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, we are inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to all the
accused.
28.In such view of the matter, these Criminal Appeals are allowed and
the judgment of the trial Court dated 20.09.2018 in S.C.No.84 of 2009, is
set aside, and all the accused are acquitted of all the charges framed against
them. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused, shall be refunded
to them. Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand discharged.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
23.10.2025
mkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Polur Police Station,
Polur,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
mkn
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
23.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 08:17:27 pm )
